Talk:Hoosac Tunnel

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I removed this section:

When the shaft was finally excavated, a raft was found, proving some had survived the initial accident.

Current web sources report this as fact, but I can't find any sources from the late 19th century mentioning this. Econrad 16:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it is cited, you can't just remove it because your own research doesn't verify it. You can only remove it is it is uncited. In any case, it's not just "web sources" (if you consider those somehow inferior and not worth counting as references), I can verify that this was reported by at least one author in print as early as 1974 ("A Pinprick of Light: The Troy and Greenfield Railroad and its Hoosac Tunnel", Carl Byron, The Stephen Green Press, Brattleboro, VT, 1974). Perhaps the claim is inaccurate, and perhaps it is not substantiated in contemproary materials, but it's not up to you to declare this. That is just a form of original research. If you can find an author who says "this claim is unsubstatiated in 19th century materials" you can feel free to add that in below the original claim about the surviving men, with a citation of its own. But you can't just say "I am an expert, I have read all the primary sources on the Hoosac Tunnel, and I have never seen any evidence of this claim, so I am removing it". That's against WP policy.

Idumea47b (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CONCUR: I concur with Idumea47b. The recommended editorial practice is to lay out the case for the edit. Alternatively, if this statement is germane/relevant to the article than identify it as a consistent with recommended styles. I would encourage you to develop draft material and post it on this talk page and then edit the article. Best to you ... Risk Engineer (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Wikipedia Idumea47b. I looked over the next set of edits on this article and regret that they were in part, unreferenced. I do, however, concur with removing the Science channel material on Alvah Crocker. If this was true it should have been part of the Crocker article, not this one. Can you please provide references to the new material in the Accidents section. (I have added a tag on this.) Overall, the article needs to be redrafted along the lines of how the tunnel as an early and controversial 19th-century engineering project was delivered, namely early planning, design, and construction aspects. Cheers Risk Engineer (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

State Park[edit]

Add External Reference to Mass DCR "Western Gateway Heritage State Park." DonDoughty 23:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gradient of Tunnel?[edit]

What is gradient of Tunnel?

Tabletop 29 June 2005 01:46 (UTC)

The tunnel rises to a point Near the Central shaft, at a grade of 20 feet over 2.5 miles. That was done because the portals are at the same elevation, and the tunnel requires a grade to allow runoff.

I'll try to find a good source for this, and update the article. Econrad 29 June 2005 13:45 (UTC)

Completion dates[edit]

I'm not sure if there's an agreed standard on when a railroad tunnel is 'complete.' In the case of the Hoosac tunnel, digging was completed in 1873, but the first train did not pass throug until 1875. Different sources report both 1873 and 1875 as the tunnel completion date. Similar differences exist for the Moffat Tunnel.

I'm going to use the '1st train passing the tunnel' date as the completion date, but I'd like to hear what folks have to say about this. Econrad 29 June 2005 14:27 (UTC)

That's what I'd go with (first regularly scheduled train, not first test train). Other dates can be mentioned in the article.

Closing date is a bit more problematic (for a subject that closed) - is it the last day service ran or the first day it didn't? I've been going with the former. --SPUI (talk) 29 June 2005 18:25 (UTC)

In-line citations?[edit]

This is a really interesting article... I wonder if I can suggest, however, that in-line citations be added? Keep up the good work! -Midnightdreary 03:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double and Single Track[edit]

The tunnel was originally double track but by 2000 was single track. Tabletop (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nitroglycerin: the first large-scale use? Maybe not[edit]

I haven't studied this in detail, but there probably are sources citing the Hoosac as the first large-scale use of nitroglycerin as an explosive. These sources may not have been aware of the use of nitroglycerin on Tunnel 6, which was the most difficult of the tunnels at Donner Pass on the Central Pacific Railroad. Some years ago, I read "Empire Express" by David Haward Bain. That book is the definitive source re the use of nitroglycerin at Tunnel 6. Tunnel 6 was holed through in 1867, if I recall correctly. If this is so, Tunnel 6 predates Hoosac as to use of nitroglycerin. However, the Hoosac may have pioneered the use of blasting caps. Oaklandguy (talk) 02:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, article should be altered. Not the first commercial use of nitroglycerin.

Also, what constitutes a "large scale" commercial project compared to normal commercial projects? Egger.brian (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error re dynamite[edit]

The article presently says, "On March 20, 1865, Ned Brinkman and Billy Nash were buried when foreman Ringo Kelly accidentally set off a blast of dynamite." That may be what the cited source says; but the cited source isn't highly reliable as to details. Dynamite wasn't patented until 1867 and wasn't available in 1865. Furthermore, the first high explosive used at Hoosac was nitroglycerin, rather than the later dynamite. The incident of 1865 is plausible if the explosive then used was black powder, rather than dynamite or nitroglycerin. Oaklandguy (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hoosac Tunnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915181230/http://olver.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1130 to http://olver.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1130

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Science Channel[edit]

I don't think the Science Channel is a very good source for material, unless it be solid facts or numbers of some sort. To quote them as saying "Crocker is considered by some to be the Father of Modern Tunneling" (or whatever) and to claim he brought in all kinds of innovations and changes is basically just repeating typical TV hyperbole. Crocker was more of a promoter than the guy running the show. The chief engineer was the one doing all the actual work, under contract. The geologists that did work on the project were totally wrong and failed to predict the "demoralized rock" slurry that plagued the whole project, the drills were copied from the work being done on the Alps, etc. Hermann Haupt converted them to run on air and had htem lightened and redesigned, and then they were bought from a third party. By the time the bore was completed, Crocker was off working on another project. to give him all the credit as if he had personally superintended the project is wronging the other men who actually did most of the organizing and worked out the small details such as "how are we actually going to DIG this tunnel". Crocker was more the guy who saw that hte tunnel was needed and found the charter and the money, and verified with geologists (wrong as they were) that a tunnel COULD be dug there. Then he turned it over to Haupt (who basically failed miserably) to do the actually digging. After Haupt went away, Doane became chief engineer, and I beleive he was until the end of the project. It was Doane who brought in the steam/air drills, who tunred to nitroglycerin, who hired Farren and the Shanlys to complete the bore. Giving all the credit to one simple figurehead who can be made to reprent the whole thing is typical of television and their low standards. It will just confuse the audience to try and explain the complex relations that actually existed, so we'll just give all the credit to this guy. Might as well choose the one who promoted the project; who will know the difference, and who's to say that he's NOT "the father of modern tunneling"? What does that even mean? How is it defined?

Idumea47b (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents NPOV[edit]

"hostile bureaucrats hoping to ruin the project" not neutral. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the language was introduced recently by Idumea47b: [1]. The original text isn't ideal either, but it's neutral. Mackensen (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderbilt[edit]

Since Cornelius Vanderbilt I died in 1877 the Vanderbilt active with the New York Central must be someone elsd.RichardBond (talk) 04:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weight of excavated rock[edit]

"The tunnel construction project required excavation of 2,000,000 tonnes (2,000,000 long tons;"

Metric tonnes are not the same as long tons. Checking with an online converter web site: 2,000,000 metric tonnes equals 1,968,413 long tons. 2,000,000 long tons equals 2,032,093.8 metric tonnes.

Which one is correct? StuZealand (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]